The Leauki Empire Comments - Brought to you by JoeUser

lulapilgrim on Lies about Israel and why People tell them

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Leauki writes:

Surely anti-Zionism doesn't have to be anti-Semitism? So why is it always?

Leauki,

You're question, "So why is it always?" is puzzling to me. It's the word "always" that has me wondering....

What is Zionism to you? and what constitutes "anti-Zionism"?

Same questions with Semitism?

lulapilgrim on Lies about Israel and why People tell them

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

If you went out on the street today and asked the average American..."What is the deal with Jews and Arabs? Why can't they get along?"

Tova7,

We've heard from some of the others, but what are your answers your own questions?

I believe most Americans have two sources for information about the Jews..ok, three.
1. News media
2. History
3. Church

To this list, I'd add the Holy Bible and Jews themselves.

Depending on what you watch, which books you read, or where you worship, lots of information about Jews can be distorted.

I agree. So what's the truth and where are we to find the truth?

Here's the problem. Most Americans don't even understand what is happening between the Palestinians and Jews and most don't care. We are a lackadaisical country when it comes to the rest of the world.

I agree.

To a certain degree, I fall into this category...I don't fully understand what's happening and most everything I read or hear, I take with a "grain of salt" and always consider the source.

lulapilgrim on Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

garblade posts:

Sorry, seems I didnt make myself understood clearly enough. I'm saying that dealing with numbers from right to left isnt a legacy of arabic.

I tend to agree.

Until now, I always understood the right to left system used to count, add, subtract, multiply and divide, as well as to calculate square roots and cube roots came from the ancient Chinese.

As a child in elementary school I was given an abacus, an ancient device first used in China and later by the ancient Greeks and Romans, to perfom mathematical problems. That's where I learned the right to left system. The first column on the right is the ones column, etc.

As far as algebra, it was the ancient Babylonians, Chinese, Persians, and the people of India who are given credit with developing and using it.

Ancient Babylonian tablets c. 3100BC contain algebraic problems. The first definitive evidence of the use of algebra appears in the writings of Rhind (Ahmes, an Egyptian mathematician) Papyrus c. 1700 BC.

The Arabs contributed to the study of algebra using positive and negative signs much like they are used today. And during the 800s, the Arabs introduced the 0 from India.

lulapilgrim on Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

ON A DIFFERENT BLOG:

LEAUKI POSTS: It's _Creationism_, not _Christianity_ that holds science back.

Want examples for that? Look at any majority Muslim country that doesn't teach evolution and instead relies on "Islamic science" (which happens to teach EXACTLY the same, word for word, as the Bible about creation, and, like you, they also take it literally).

LULA POSTS: I'm curious, Leauki, would you name some significant scientific contributions made by Muslims?

LEAUKI WRITES:

(This is a reply to a question asked in the comments section of a previous article about Creationism. Question asked was about examples of scientific research in Islamic countries in the past.)

Leauki,

Thanks for writing this article in response to my question.

Keeping in mind your statement, "It's _Creationism_, not _Christianity_ that holds science back. Want examples for that? Look at any majority Muslim country that doesn't teach evolution and instead relies on "Islamic science",

would you kindly expand upon that or connect it to what you wrote:

Muslims have (back then) made major advances in astronomy and architecture as well, but astronomy is really complicated and I really don't know anything about architecture. They were very advanced in the field of medicine, came up with the theory of bacteria causing diseases, found treatments, basically invented what we now know as dental surgery, and the use of anesthesia. Their books, translated into Latin formed the base of medical science in Europe for centuries.

Paladin77 on Lies about Israel and why People tell them

Paladin77 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

It is very simple, Jews are bad because they killed Christ. Ask any Nazi, they will tell you, this it was their reason behind the final solution. The nation state of Israel was our response to the final solution. It seems some groups don’t get that.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

It is difficult, for some, to understand that there is no such thing as a "transitional" animal.

No branch is "transitional".

If we ever find a "transitional" fossil, in the sense the Creationists understand the word, Darwin's theory would have been proven wrong.

"Random chance", "transitional", "macro-evolution": three words that have nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

Unfortunately it takes some reading to understand Darwin's theory and most Creationists openly admit that they won't do that.

Leauki,

Have you ever heard of or read Jeremias Wells, "History of Western Civilization"?

He writes that after Adam and Eve committed Original Sin, mankind's intellect was darkened, his will weakened, and his tendencies were subjected to evil inclinations. His unruly nature divided society into 2 camps based on 2 opposing principles...."A camp of those who live solely for the pleasures of this world and one for those who order themselves and society for the glory of God. Therein lies the drama."

As far back as Copernicus, a "war" began pitting science against religious truths. Many in scientific circles regarded Genesis and Christianity as an obstacle to scientific progress. They declared the religious truths of Adam and Eve, Original Sin and Christ's Redemption as legend, myth, or misconception, etc.

With an outlook on disproving that the universe and man were created by God, science developed new theories and views and hypotheses. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is essentially a set of ideas promoted by atheistic or agnostic scientists, naturalists, and materialists.

To most people, Darwin's Theory of (Natural) Evolution essentially means that over billions of years, all present forms of life---plant, animal and human---"evolved" or emerged from a common cell by chance processes without a transcendent Creator anywhere in the picture.

Granted, there are many conflicting versions of Darwin's Theory. Once older theories run into conceptual problems, newer versions emerge, their proponents always hoping to find the elusive mechanism for how this macro-evolutionary process occurred/is occurring.

Evolutionists still have to show a clear pattern of descent with modification both conceptually and from evidence in the fossils. If Eovlution did occur, it should be possible to show lineages and to establish phylogeny (a closely identified "tree" structure ancestry), but this has not been done.

There are no fossils that show these "transitional" lineages, none whatsoever.

Anyone who believes they descended from an ape-like creature believes on Darwinian faith becasue that camp has shown no proof of its claim.

The following quote is from ReMine, The Biotic Message.

"Life was designed to resist all naturalistic interpretations. Therefore, the biomessage sender had to defeat the appearance of lineage. This was done with diversity (which) is the antithesis of lineage. Diversity destroys the semblance of lineage...Diversity thwarts phylogeny.

The pattern of life at the molecular level of proteins and genes follows message theory precisely. It could hardly be more potent evidence. Life's many molecular phenograms and cladograms fomr a smooth, distince pattern that refutes transposition and unmaking processes. That pattern allows the absence of gradual intergraduation and phylogeny to take on real force as evidence against evolution. That pattern also unifies life and reveals an incredible degree of planning and design."

The actual fossil evidence supports Genesis. In contrast to evolutionary depictions of a "tree or bush like" ancestry, the fossil evidence of both creatures and plants found is one of parallel vertical ancestry. Most of the phyla appear all of a sudden, in the Campbrian Period, the field evidence is that of well preserved unique types of fossils and absolute absence of "transitional", or "intermediate" or "links" life forms.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Lula posts:

If what you say is true, then there should be millions of fossils of creatures in the in-between stages of transformation... where are they? Produce them and we'll have some real science to discuss.

The issue here is that the term "transitional" is controversial at best.

Please, no word games, Warreni. You know as well as I of what I'm speaking...it's the missing links of Darwin's evolution tree....the fossils between your hypothetical ape-like ancestor and modern man. Evolution depends on a staggering number of rough drafts which lived in the unobserved past, have gone extinct, and replaced by their evolved descendants. They're missing because no one has ever seen one.

As each type evolves into something else, (you called it "large scale evolutionary process"), there there should be a staggering number in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the dexcendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution claims fish evolved into amphibians, that reptiles evolved into birds, that apelike creatures evolved into man. If fish evolved into amphibians, there should be distinct lifeforms along the way, say, 90% fish, 10% amphibian, then 80/20. Unless and until these transitional forms are found, proof of your so called "large scale evolutionary process", then and only then, will we have some real science to discuss.

You and I and all other modern humans are descendants of ape-like ancestors.

Then your faith is according to the gospel of Darwin and his followers.

Mine is in Almighty God and according to His word in the Biblical account which provides us with the starting point for the history of mankind. My ancestors date back to Adam and Eve. (Pssst...and so do yours!)

warreni on The Word on Creationism

warreni — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

lulapilgrim

comment 169

If what you say is true, then there should be millions of fossils of creatures in the in-between stages of transformation... where are they? Produce them and we'll have some real science to discuss. Are you descended from the apes? Could you explain how this happened?

lula,

There are many items in the fossil record that could be called transitional. The issue here is that the term "transitional" is controversial at best. It implies an old way of thinking, the use of a "key" characteristic to define a taxonomic group rather than shared evolutionary history. I can show you feathered reptiles and whales that walk on land. Is that what you want?

No, I am not "descended from apes" and neither are you. Don't get too excited. This is a common creationist misapprehension, sometimes deliberate and sometimes not. You cannot point to some larger clade like hominids or cetaceans or arachnids or annelids and say, "This modern group descends from this other modern group." That's not how evolution works. You and I and all other modern humans are descendants of ape-like ancestors. As for the process, I just described it to you, several times.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

WARRENI POSTS:

I reiterate: the distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution is false dichotomy, posited by creationists because it suits their purposes. Evolution is change over time. That's not "having it both ways." That is the classic definition of evolution. The time it takes go from a fish-like organism to a salamander-like organism is considerably larger in scope than the time it takes to go from one protist to another. Here's the trick: because you can't see it with your own eyes, it doesn't make it "false." Do you accept that your body is composed of atoms with protons and neutrons in a nucleus orbited by electrons? Why? Can you see them? No, and neither can you directly observe large-scale evolutionary processes. But the process is the same, irrespective of time scale.

Note what is highlighted...

If what you say is true, then there should be millions of fossils of creatures in the in-between stages of transformation... where are they? Produce them and we'll have some real science to discuss.

Are you descended from the apes? Could you explain how this happened?

warreni on The Word on Creationism

warreni — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

lulapilgrim

comment 166

Lula posts: But that hasn't happened and why? Becasue Random mutations in the sense of macroevolution have NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED...so therefore impossible to be easily observed in the lab.WARRENI POSTS: .... Over time, however, directed (by processes like selection) mutations can and do lead to the evolution of new species. You are attempting to state that we are waiting for some kind of mutational event that will create a flying pig in a lab. That's also a creationist fantasy, the "hopeful monster" straw man.Read your own words...the highlighted part...."evolution of new species". This is the crux of the debate. Variety within kind is not evolution; neither is natural selection. Evolution of new and different species is macro-evolution, exactly the same as what Time-Life describes and shows drawings. To date, while theories showing Darwin's "molecules to man natural transformation" in which new higher genetic info is gained, have evolved, none have been proven.In order to be true, Darwin's Evolution requires improvement. Macro-Evolutionists try to use mutations as the mechanism that cross species evolution occurred in the past. In order for this to happen, mutations must be 100% beneficial all the time, however, just the opposite is true. With very few exceptions, mutations can't produce a higher organism. Mutations are considered damage to a single DNA unit, injuring the individual.

lula,

As long as you insist on defining your own terms and making ludicrous and unsupported assertions regarding what is and is not science, I don't see how we can have a discussion and pretend that we're talking about the same thing.

I reiterate: the distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution is false dichotomy, posited by creationists because it suits their purposes. Evolution is change over time. That's not "having it both ways." That is the classic definition of evolution. The time it takes go from a fish-like organism to a salamander-like organism is considerably larger in scope than the time it takes to go from one protist to another. Here's the trick: because you can't see it with your own eyes, it doesn't make it "false." Do you accept that your body is composed of atoms with protons and neutrons in a nucleus orbited by electrons? Why? Can you see them? No, and neither can you directly observe large-scale evolutionary processes. But the process is the same, irrespective of time scale.

No, science does not assume that the majority of mutations are beneficial, and whoever suggested that to you lied. Yes, the vast majority of (non-silent) mutational events are detrimental to the organism, and that's why selection is important. If you hadn't been so hung up on the taxonomically-nonsensical creationist notion of "kinds" when you quoted my earlier post, you'd have seen (and understood?) my statement that directed mutations lead to the evolution of new species. Selective pressures favor mutations that do confer an advantage to an organism in a particular environment, and this leads to changes in allele frequencies in a population and often leads to speciation.

Evolutionary theory requires "improvement" only in a very loose sense of the term: a mutation that confers some selective advantage in a particular environment at a particular point in time. An "improvement" by your standards doesn't really mean anything in the natural world. A retrovirus may be one of the simplest and most perfect organisms that has ever existed.

What is a DNA unit, anyway?

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Lula posts:

But that hasn't happened and why? Becasue Random mutations in the sense of macroevolution have NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED...so therefore impossible to be easily observed in the lab.

WARRENI POSTS:

.... Over time, however, directed (by processes like selection) mutations can and do lead to the evolution of new species. You are attempting to state that we are waiting for some kind of mutational event that will create a flying pig in a lab. That's also a creationist fantasy, the "hopeful monster" straw man.

Read your own words...the highlighted part...."evolution of new species".

This is the crux of the debate. Variety within kind is not evolution; neither is natural selection.

Evolution of new and different species is macro-evolution, exactly the same as what Time-Life describes and shows drawings. To date, while theories showing Darwin's "molecules to man natural transformation" in which new higher genetic info is gained, have evolved, none have been proven.

In order to be true, Darwin's Evolution requires improvement. Macro-Evolutionists try to use mutations as the mechanism that cross species evolution occurred in the past. In order for this to happen, mutations must be 100% beneficial all the time, however, just the opposite is true.

With very few exceptions, mutations can't produce a higher organism. Mutations are considered damage to a single DNA unit, injuring the individual.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

WARRENI POSTS:

Lula,

Time-Life is not really a definitive work of "secular" biology. Time-Life books are cheaply-produced and frequently contain errors and outdated information as the primary literature passes them by and they are not updated.

If your book really says this, it's a sad distortion of reality. An adaptive radiation occurs when a group of organisms moves into a new habitat with many empty ecological niches. It involves relatively rapid evolutionary change resulting in different morphological forms that can take advantage of these niches. Darwin's finches are the classic example.

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.

I apologize for taking so long to respond.

Re: Time-Life books....

Time-Life is part and parcel of the liberal, secular media establishment that pushes Darwinism as "fact".

These books don't appear to be cheaply produced...in between its glossy cover is page after page of beautfiully colored drawings depicting Darwin's "molecules to mankind" Evolutionary tree.

Time-Life is full of errors, man's imaginations, but guess what...these are the same errors, same drawings in classroom science textbooks.

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.

Gee, which one is it? True blue believers in Darwinism accuse Genesis of being a Creationist fantasy!

What you and Leauki seem to misunderstand is the difference between evolution true science, what some call micro-evolution, and false science, which is what Time-Life is peddling as Macro-Evolution.

This goes to the first sentence of Leauki's article..

True science (evolution = change within kind) is the truth about nature and how it works, and false science (macroevolution = change across different species)is a lie.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Again, they have observed, in the lab, how two breeds of fruitflies became two species of fruitflies.

Begin with fruitflies....end with fruitflies...

how two breeds of bacteria evolved into two different species of bacteria with two different ways of "eating".

Begin with bacteria....end with bacteria

Neither one of these examples is evidence for Darwinism nor demonstrates what Darwinism posits...

Also, wouldn't you agree that experiments such as these that we can cause to occur in laboratory settings do not or could not necessarily ever happen in nature?

To understand evolution, one has to read books about it or do research; and they won't.

Leauki,

No offense, but you're mistaken. I've read every science textbook from the 6th to 12th grades, including the AP level on Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I've seen documentaries, videos and read position papers.

I'm tired of the guesswork of those who took Darwin's theory of Godless Evolution and ran with it and find nothing new in Dawkins.

I am open to being convinced by any true believer in Darwinism but all efforts have failed thus far that proves we are descended from the apes. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "the evolutionist seems to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing!"

As far as I can tell the only thing about Darwin's theory that has evolved is Darwin's theory itself.

I am trying to convince atheists and secular individuals that religion doesn't make one irrational and that a belief in G-d doesn't mean rejecting scientific research. I am also trying to make the point that to understand biology and religion, one has to read up on both.

A worthy goal!

Dr Guy on Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

Dr Guy — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Hence the "Science AND Maths" part (emphasis new).

I thought we were mentioned separately because we were special.

warreni on The Word on Creationism

warreni — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

You're right. I did misunderstand, but now I see.

I think Richard Dawkins would disagree with your premise that religion and science are fundamentally compatible. He never bought into Gould's concept (although not really something that originated with SJG) of "non-overlapping magisteria." (Gould was the first to give this concept that particular name, what my grandfather would have called a "ten-dollar word.") I haven't read The God Delusion, but I will have to do so in the near future.

Unless Dawkins has persuasive arguments that convince me otherwise, however, I've never really believed that science and religion have to be incompatible. I have a broad and shallow knowledge of religious beliefs and a deep and somewhat narrow knowledge of scientific principles and practices. To me, the two areas ask different questions and seek different answers. Both are concerned with mysteries that the other cannot address within its given context and utilizing its chosen methods. I expect most reasonable people would agree with this position.

I would say that religious belief actually is inherently irrational--specifically in the sense that faith is something that cannot be justified on the grounds of objective empirical study. So I'm not certain that I agree with that statement, but it's certainly true that there are many believers (adherents to various Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other sects) who have a good understanding of science. As long as your faith merely informs the way you view the world rather than restricting the way you view the world, I think that ensures that you have room in your mind for all ways of gaining knowledge. This tends to be the area where the faith of fundamentalists fails them, as it constricts what they can accept as reality.

Addressing your final point, I can't imagine anyone would seriously question that statement. To argue about a topic from ignorance is simply to ignore the old maxim: it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

warreni on The Word on Creationism

warreni — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

All that we can rightfully point to is change within species. As to change across species, they're dreaming Leauki. Snoresville!Again, they have observed, in the lab, how two breeds of fruitflies became two species of fruitflies.They have also observed, in the lab, how two breeds of bacteria evolved into two different species of bacteria with two different ways of "eating".It takes longer with mammals, but it was the equivalent of "redesigning" the way our whole digestive system works.

Leauki,

Your examples are both reasonable and relevant, but I fear you're wasting your time. The only evidence lula is willing to accept is if we could demonstrate a Goldschmidt-esque "hopeful monster" in the laboratory for her to see (i.e., induce a mutational event that would turn a gorilla into a man-like creature or a fish into a turtle-like creature). It doesn't matter that this notion is based on an erroneous understanding of how the evolutionary process works; as long as creationists can cling to this and other long-discredited ideas, they can continue to deny the fact of evolution.

GarBlade on Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

GarBlade — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Hmm...interesting, not convinced you're right though. But unfortunately where as I might claim to be knowledgeable about maths, I certainly cant claim to know much (well anything really) about the history of languages. So disagreeing on the basis of some quick research is pointless.

Anyway, thanks for explaining your view point.

GarBlade on Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

GarBlade — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Sorry, seems I didnt make myself understood clearly enough. I'm saying that dealing with numbers from right to left isnt a legacy of arabic. Its a legacy of the system itself.
If you can offer proof to the contrary I'm genuinely interested to know.

Dr Guy on Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

Dr Guy — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Having been a Math Major in College, I would disagree with the science part.

While I am somewhat familiar with the origins of modern day math (especially Algebra and Calculus), much of this came as a V8 moment. Obvious in retrospect, not known by this commenter.

Since math is my first love (and I take it at least a passing fancy of yours), I do find it interesting, even if others find it extremely boring. IN the early days of computer programming (when MINI computers came with a whopping 64k of RAM), using math in programming was essential to minimize code and optimize performance (the antithesis of today I know).

Thanks for the lesson.

GarBlade on Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

GarBlade — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Sorry, but the premise for what you've written is incorrect. And strangely you even touch on the truth at the beginning. We got our number system from the Arabs, they got it from India. Thats why its called the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. They werent the creators, they just passed it on. Thats not to say they didnt add to it of course (I think they developed fractions) but to claim most of our mathmetics comes from them is a wild inaccuracy.

What you've described is a positional number system. The Hindu-Arabic system wasnt the only one out there either. Although it was probably the first to be "complete" in the sense of what we use today.

Its funny really, I've just been having a look around the internet at this stuff. There almost seems to be secret war going on between cultures to take credit for various inventions.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Leauki,

Post #151 is quite insightful. Thanks.

1. Atheists believe all sorts of things,

Of course Atheists believe in things. Atheism is more a denial of the ultimate Cause of things including the law of our being.

The Atheist and the mind of a child.

Why is it dark?
Because the sun sets.
Why does the sun set?
Because the earth moves around it.
Why does the earth move around it?
Because of gravity.
What's gravity?
It's a law of nature.
Where does the law of nature come from?
Child, don't ask so many questions.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

For those still interested in the actual subject, here is a site that debunks pretty much every single position Creationists come up with:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

All that we can rightfully point to is change within species. As to change across species, they're dreaming Leauki. Snoresville!

"When men cling to an outworn theory with no supporting evidence, the problem is within the mind. They are entrenched dogmatists, fearful to consider alternative facts and conclusions. When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaption is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."----- Norman MacBeth, Darwin Retried, 1971.

stubbyfinger on The Word on Creationism

stubbyfinger — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Same guy different video.

I posted it because there’s a reference to giving the atheist a holiday.

stubbyfinger on The Word on Creationism

stubbyfinger — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

OckhamsRazor on The Word on Creationism

OckhamsRazor — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Now we're all fools as well. Your Christian love knows no bounds, does it? That you don't care a wit about personally offending an atheist is indicative of your true colors. Exactly as I expected. Yet another Christian hypocrite. Yawn.

The content of that email, by the way, is fictional. Never happened. Yet another lie propogated by the biggest bearers of false witness in the galaxy. Keep going, Lula...see if you can break a few more commandments. You're on a roll.

Ah the self esteem bump you must get from sitting around with your Christian friends laughing about the silly atheists and singing "we're going to heaven, and they don't get to..nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" We don't get to do that. I'm going to court.

Not.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Atheists *I* know don't "believe" in things.

Go ahead and continue trying to fool the sheeple, but I've got your number.

Regarding your comment about atheists and what they believe and don't believe....
and when I saw the word "fool" in your reply, I was reminded of this email that's been making the rounds.

COURT SETS ATHEIST'S HOLIDAY

In Florida, an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared, 'Case dismissed!'

The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, 'Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other observances. Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah...yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!'

The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, 'Obviously your client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate his own atheists' holiday!' The lawyer pompously said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?'

The judge said, 'Well it comes every year on exactly the same date---April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as 'April Fool's Day,' consider that Psalm (13)14:1 states, "The fool has said in his heart: There is no God."

Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no God, then by Scripture, he is a fool, and April 1st is his holiday! Now have a good day and get out of my courtroom!

OckhamsRazor on The Word on Creationism

OckhamsRazor — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Atheists *I* know don't "believe" in things. I put that in quotes because it rings of "has faith in." The atheists I know, including myself, don't have "faith" in things. And note. You never said "atheists who believe in Darwinism"..that would have been ok, In fact, you could have just said "people who believe in darwinism, and your opinion would have been just that, an opinion, and fine with me. But you lumped us all together as if we have meetings to discuss what our agenda is and what we all believe. It isn't atheists that have meetings to dicuss what we all believe, it's the religious peoples.

But what DO atheists believe? I can make an educated guess. We believe that 2+2=4 because we can demonstrate it. We believe in 1=1. Those of us that "believe" in principles of evolution believe in the parts that can be demonstrated. We might have an inclination to SUSPECT that other propositions that evolution points to COULD be true, but we don't "believe" in it. For those other propositions, we stand by, ready to have our suspicions overturned at a moment's notice. Unlike you, whose suspicions are actually superstitions. And you aren't ready to be disproved, ever. If the Bible said 2+2=5, you'd be here arguing it in the face of all the evidence that says it doesn't, or you'd be making excuses about misinterpretations.

In short, you're extremely closed minded. If your god exists, you've commited the cardinal sin of limiting your existence to those things handed down in an outdated doctrine that no longer fits the bill of life. Observationally, that makes you objectively an idiot. You think that's personal and says more about me than it does about you? Fine. I'm no judge. I'll let others believe what they believe without my help. Can you claim the same thing? Do so, and I'll add "liar" to the list again. Go ahead and continue trying to fool the sheeple, but I've got your number. Where's your sign?

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

"Pro-lifers" think it's ok to kill doctors who perform abortions.

One can't be pro-life and for killing abortionist "doctors" at the same time.

Whereas, it's not oxymoronic for atheists who believe in Darwinism to be concerned when true science disproves it.

SanChonino on The Word on Creationism

SanChonino — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Ock: I guess she does want to kill the doctors after all.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Lula posts:

however, in general, atheists pay a lot of attention to scientific discoveries and when ever any disprove Darwin's molecules to man theory, a panic sets in the playing field

OCK posts:

You can't talk about a group of INDIVIDUALS in a general sense.

Well, I can and I did...and again, I can't help it if you take it personally.

I also speak of abortionists, Communists, Democrats and Republicans, etc.,etc.,etc., in general terms. So what?

OckhamsRazor on The Word on Creationism

OckhamsRazor — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Throughout this discussion, whenver I reference Atheism or atheists, it's always been in a general sense...I can't help it, if as a self proclaimed atheist, you take it personally.

You can't talk about a group of INDIVIDUALS in a general sense. I still don't know what is confusing to you about that. Is English your first language? The idiocy comment I made wasn't personal. It was observational. But I know that observing things doesn't make them real in your world. Unless god said it, it didn't happen.

"Pro-lifers" think it's ok to kill doctors who perform abortions. Do you understand now? I'm just talking about pro-lifers in a general sense, after all.

warreni on The Word on Creationism

warreni — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Hopefully, now you better understand the differences between the science of micro-evolution (true science) and the pseudo science of macro-Evolution, Darwinism,There is no such thing as "macro-evolution" according to Darwin and the theory of evolution."Macro-evolution" is a concept made up by lying (!) Creationists.Okay, now with this I see you're still not understanding there is a vast difference between the two.I have a book entitled "Evolution of Life; Understanding Science and Nature" published by TIME-LIFE in Alexandria,Virginia. If you care to check out Time-Life, you'll find they are 100% secular...they are part and parcel of the media that pushes Darwinism or macro-Evolution theory as "fact". This book can be found in the children's section of most public and school libraries here in the US. It's indoctrinating Darwinism as fact. On page 24 begins an entire chapter that answers the question, "What is Macroevolution"?Since there are no restrictions whatsoever of my reproducing the first two paragraphs, "At certain times in the course of evolution, the many small changes that produce new species accumulate to the point where, suddenly, a radically different form of life appears. From that one species, many new species evolve--the tree of life grows a new large branch from which dozens of smaller branches will develop. This dramatic change is known as macroevolution, or adaptive radiation. An example is when the first feathered reptile appeared; this was the ancestor of all the first birds that have evolved since.In the animal kingdom, an early macroevolution produced an eel-like species with a spinal cord but no backbone. The next huge step occurred when the first fish evolved, with its weight supporting backbone. The appearance of lobbed-finned fish, which were able to breathe on land, represents another macroevolution. Millions of years later, the first reptile appeared, and millions of years after that, the first mammal."

Lula,

Time-Life is not really a definitive work of "secular" biology. Time-Life books are cheaply-produced and frequently contain errors and outdated information as the primary literature passes them by and they are not updated.

If your book really says this, it's a sad distortion of reality. An adaptive radiation occurs when a group of organisms moves into a new habitat with many empty ecological niches. It involves relatively rapid evolutionary change resulting in different morphological forms that can take advantage of these niches. Darwin's finches are the classic example.

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.

But that hasn't happened and why? Becasue Random mutations in the sense of macroevolution have NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED...so therefore impossible to be easily observed in the lab.

The above doesn't make any internal sense. Do you know what we're talking about when we say "mutation"? It means a random change in a nucleotide sequence of DNA, often a single-letter substitution or deletion, that may have far-ranging consequences in a phenotype. Or it may be a "silent" mutation doing absolutely nothing. Over time, however, directed (by processes like selection) mutations can and do lead to the evolution of new species. You are attempting to state that we are waiting for some kind of mutational event that will create a flying pig in a lab. That's also a creationist fantasy, the "hopeful monster" straw man.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

When you say "atheists believe this" or "atheists say that," you're referring to all atheists. I'm an atheist, and I'll thank you very kindly to not put words in my mouth.

Throughout this discussion, whenver I reference Atheism or atheists, it's always been in a general sense...I can't help it, if as a self proclaimed atheist, you take it personally.

As for my putting words in your mouth,

Truth is, I'd have said what I said had you not ever participated in the discussion.

Put up some proof for your above statement, or shut your lying mouth.

How do you expect anyone to listen to a word you say when you display such abject idiocy?

Now this is personal...and unfortunately, it says more about you than it does about me.

Smoothseas on The Word on Creationism

Smoothseas — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Theology, knowledge of God and His works, is the highest science.

It is not science in any shape or form. It is the study of religion. Not the study of God since some religions have more than one god and others have none.

Most monotheistic religions define God mainly to teach ethics, to teach that there is a greater good than the individual and to stress spirituality over materialism.

OckhamsRazor on The Word on Creationism

OckhamsRazor — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

When you say "atheists believe this" or "atheists say that," you're referring to all atheists. I'm an atheist, and I'll thank you very kindly to not put words in my mouth. Is that too confusing for you? You have the entire universe figured out but can't tell when you're making an unfair assertion about an entire group when talking about a singular subset of that group?

How do you expect anyone to listen to a word you say when you display such abject idiocy?

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

You want to give examples, that's fine, but don't link them to me just because I'm an atheist, too.

To my knowledge, I haven't linked you personally into anything I've written on this blog.

I've correctly and consistently pointed out that Darwinism is an atheistic system of belief....my gripe is mainly that even though Darwinism hasn't been proven...it's taught to unwary school children as scientific fact.

If you adults want to believe you evolved from ape-like creatures, then what can I say....but indoctrinating school kids with that tripe is paramount to a crime in my mind.

The cells of each different "kind" of species may be similiar, but they are not common. The science of Genetics has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I understand that those in Darwin's day and on through the years had no idea how complex the cell is...and they developed a theory... which now, modern science has squashed. It's time to get with the program....

It's man's promotion of Darwinism that's the lie, not God's Creative work and how that is depicted in Genesis.

_dreamer_ on The Word on Creationism

_dreamer_ — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Sorry to interrupt the whole serious theological debate, but quick detour...

About the whole eye-thing... Maybe it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster imitating his Noodly Appendage? (for those of you who think i'm crazy, which I am, read: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/).

Now for an actual comment... I'm still curious as to why people can be wrong for believing something one way or the other? I'm Jewish and an atheist but that doesn't mean that I have to believe in creationism or evolution or pastafarianism (once again view the link). Everybody believes what they believe and in the end if they're wrong then they're wrong and they're screwed for not believing in the "real believers." Sucks to them.

There was this movie I saw about the Scopes Monkey Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial) that had a valid point. Maybe both coexist together? Then who's wrong? Maybe nobody is wrong?

Basically, the idea goes along something like this... On the first day G-d made something or other (I don't know what he allegedly made but it was made, huzzah!). The next day he makes something else, and so on and so forth until the Sabbath and then he rests. The point was, whoever said that a day meant a day in our world? Maybe a day was a hunder-bazillion years or whatever. How can we be sure? G-d is some super-cool high power being, maybe his Sabbath is still going on? Maybe evolution was through his creation? Maybe he got really really tired and that's why we're not perfect, we're all just chillin' until he returns from his vacation and gets back to work on week #2 of his journey and whatnot?

I dunno, I don't see why Creationists have to be wrong or Evolutionists. I think the only people who are wrong are those who feel that other people have done wrong by believing in something that makes them feel connected to the world around them.

OckhamsRazor on The Word on Creationism

OckhamsRazor — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

however, in general, atheists pay a lot of attention to scientific discoveries and when ever any disprove Darwin's molecules to man theory, a panic sets in the playing field

Another broad generalization. I take it that means you aren't sorry.

Since no apology for your egregious generalization came, then none is accepted, loving, understanding, forgiving, compassionate, Christian.

Put up some proof for your above statement, or shut your lying mouth.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Panic?

All of the atheists I know couldn't care less if science overturns anything.

That may well be true in your circle...however, in general, atheists pay a lot of attention to scientific discoveries and when ever any disprove Darwin's molecules to man theory, a panic sets in the playing field....and a rash of atheists write books trying to make the dogmas of Darwinism appeal all the more.

And it isn't becasue people who believe this nonsense are stupid, they aren't. More like obtuse. On some subjects some people simpluy refuse to use their (what my mom use to call "thinking caps") heads.

OckhamsRazor on The Word on Creationism

OckhamsRazor — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

And that's the panic for atheism and those otherwise true believers in Darwinism....for at every turn, the vast and accumulating evidence of modern science is agaisnt Darwinism.

Panic? I don't know any panicking atheists. Can you give me one link to anything where an atheist displays panic because he thinks any current statement of science is about to be overturned?

All of the atheists I know couldn't care less if science overturns anything. they'd simply reformulate their views to be in line with what was the new scientifically supported idea. And all of the atheists I know, if God's existence were suddenly proven beyond a shadow of a scientific doubt, would say "Whoops, guess I was wrong."

You really shouldn't generalize. Not everyone thinks the same way, and just because you find one atheist that says something doesn't mean we all believe it or ascribe to it. No more than all Christians believe that the earth is 6000 years old. You want to give examples, that's fine, but don't link them to me just because I'm an atheist, too.

SanChonino on The Word on Creationism

SanChonino — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Well, TECHNICALLY there are not "transitional fossils" because all species are "transitional".

I know. You should realize by now that I'm being completely facetious.

SanChonino on The Word on Creationism

SanChonino — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Just remember: All those scientific discoveries that support evolution are actually the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who touches those scientists with his noodly appendage to keep us all in the dark about his noodly glory.

Because, you know, he created everything. In way less time than no steenkin' six days.

SanChonino on The Word on Creationism

SanChonino — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Your god hid another fossil for us to find and prove evolution: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33623/title/Fossil_helps_document_shift_from_sea_to_land

No way! There are TRANSITIONAL fossils? And they've been busy telling me there is no such thing, hammering it into my head over and over and over and over and over and over . . .

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Seriously, read a book about about evolution.[/quote]

Do you seriously think I could carry on a discussion if I haven't read any books on evolution? I am a mother and former librarian who has fought long and hard against having macroevolution as fact taught in schools.

You, Leauki, unless you're playing games, must learn the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Microevolution is true science that we agree 100% upon and the Macroevolution (Darwinism) is pseudo science, a lie developed by atheists, being masqueraded as fact or truth.

As we write this, true science is discrediting if not entirely disproving Darwin's marco-evolution theory. Natural selection and all the other intellectual levers used to pry God from His throne has failed, for right reason finds God to be the Creator and final end of mankind. God

I am wonderfully made by God according to His purposes and not the product of a single cell that by chance somehow randomly mutated into a brute ape-like creature.

In short, I believe in Genesis and from that know without question that I didn't evolve from an ape-like creature, but if you want to believe you did, then what can I say?

quote]That's it. We'll continue once you quote to me the first complete sentence on page 42 of "The Selfish Gene".

Sorry, I can't abide your terms. So, Bye, bye. Good luck on finding those transitional forms between man and the lower animals.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Random mutations" are not "highly implausible", but can easily be observed in labs.

Ha, That would be a Darwinist's dream come true and it would be plastered on every news outlet all over the world.

But that hasn't happened and why? Becasue Random mutations in the sense of macroevolution have NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED...so therefore impossible to be easily observed in the lab.

Remember your example of bacteria, I said that we begin with bacteria and end up with bacteria? More to that, random mutations most generally produce something less, not more. The vast majority of random mutations are deletrious to the organism, not better for it. If macro-evolution were to occur, it would take hundreds of millions of mutations, and that too is an impossibility especially in nature. That's why they call it random mutations.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Hopefully, now you better understand the differences between the science of micro-evolution (true science) and the pseudo science of macro-Evolution, Darwinism,

There is no such thing as "macro-evolution" according to Darwin and the theory of evolution.

"Macro-evolution" is a concept made up by lying (!) Creationists.

Okay, now with this I see you're still not understanding there is a vast difference between the two.

I have a book entitled "Evolution of Life; Understanding Science and Nature" published by TIME-LIFE in Alexandria,Virginia. If you care to check out Time-Life, you'll find they are 100% secular...they are part and parcel of the media that pushes Darwinism or macro-Evolution theory as "fact". This book can be found in the children's section of most public and school libraries here in the US. It's indoctrinating Darwinism as fact.

On page 24 begins an entire chapter that answers the question, "What is Macroevolution"?

Since there are no restrictions whatsoever of my reproducing the first two paragraphs,

"At certain times in the course of evolution, the many small changes that produce new species accumulate to the point where, suddenly, a radically different form of life appears. From that one species, many new species evolve--the tree of life grows a new large branch from which dozens of smaller branches will develop. This dramatic change is known as macroevolution, or adaptive radiation. An example is when the first feathered reptile appeared; this was the ancestor of all the first birds that have evolved since.

In the animal kingdom, an early macroevolution produced an eel-like species with a spinal cord but no backbone. The next huge step occurred when the first fish evolved, with its weight supporting backbone. The appearance of lobbed-finned fish, which were able to breathe on land, represents another macroevolution. Millions of years later, the first reptile appeared, and millions of years after that, the first mammal."

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

I recommend Richard Dawkins' books. They explain everything best.

We have discussed Dawkin's book on another blog.

I don't know how Darwinist evolution could disprove G-d and I have never heard of any atheist, including Professor Dawkins, who would have made such a claim as you seem to remember.

Anyway, did you or did you not read Richard Dawkins' books about evolution?

The other blog I was referring to is AdNauseum's, "Invitation to JU Bible Students".

In it we discussed Dawkin's book and Darwinism in particular.

In it reply #7, I wrote,

In my view, Darwinism's "molecules to man" theory does indeed deny God, 100%. I haven't read Dawkin's book only several reviews, and none treat Dawkin, as you do here, as a fellow Darwinist. I should like to explore the Godless part of Darwinism and Dawkinism more.

But first, I'd like to make an observation about how history and later, science, has disproven Darwinism. To believe in Darwinism, macro-Evolution theory, that mankind somehow evolved---from nothing to molecule to ape to man---one would have to believe that we have experienced a steady rise from brutality, right?

Both history and science deny this steady rise from one species to another. I say our humanness was created all at once, as Adam was, completely distinct and unique and as "fallen man", we have been not experiencing a steady rise, but falling ever since. History is full of falls. Nations rise to a high state of civilization and decay. If Evolution wants to maintain a steady uplift, history itself proves it wrong.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

My point is that this debate continues because atheists (in general) think Darwinism Evolution disproves God.

I'm sorry if I'm confusing things. When I say, "this debate", I mean the greater controversy that's been going on for over 150 years...Creation vs Evolution. We are continuing that debate in this particular discussion on JU (which btw,I'm enjoying tremendously and glad to be a participant ).

In that case I am not sure what you are discussing because I don't think anybody brought that up.

You did, albeit not directly, by your title and saying that

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

Hopefully, now you better understand the differences between the science of micro-evolution (true science) and the pseudo science of macro-Evolution, Darwinism, which posits that from some kind of primeval "molecular soup" over millions of years of accidental, random mutations (highly implausible) and natural selection (pointless tautology), mankind evolved.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

I think a truer statement is that fundamentalists need evolution to NOT be true.

Just to be clear, whenever I see "evolution", I take it to mean Darwin's Theory which is called Sarwinism.

Believers don't need Darwin's Theory or any of the theories in this world to believe in God. They have the supernatural gift of faith which brings out my point that theology is the highest science.

Believing in God and Genesis is easy. Just look around...no amount of Darwinism could ever do that.

And that's the panic for atheism and those otherwise true believers in Darwinism....for at every turn, the vast and accumulating evidence of modern science is agaisnt Darwinism.

It turns out that science itself is the death knell of Darwinism.

lulapilgrim on The Word on Creationism

lulapilgrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0400

Atheists absolutely need Evolution to be true

That's a lie. I don't need any such thing. If Evolution were completely disproved tomorrow, I'd drop the idea like a hot rock and not think twice about it. But I also wouldn't just fill in the gap that was left with God.

My point is that this debate continues because atheists (in general) think Darwinism Evolution disproves God. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell U. calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man.

I recommend Richard Dawkins' books. They explain everything best.

We have discussed Dawkin's book on another blog. Dawkin's is a disciple of Darwin and he wrote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."